Planet X myth debunked

March 16, 2014
by Jean-Louis Santini

The hunt for Planet X began after Uranus (pictured) was first discovered in 1781 with astrologers hoping it could explain the wobbly orbit of Uranus around the sun

It was an elusive planet that for 200 years appeared to explain Uranus's wobbly orbit. And there was the sister sun theorized to be near our solar system that caused asteroids to swerve toward Earth.

There is just one problem: neither "Planet X" nor "Nemesis" ever existed, researchers now say.

Or probably not.

"The outer solar system probably does not contain a large gas giant planet ("Planet X"), or a small, companion star ("Nemesis")," concluded University of Pennsylvania astronomer Kevin Luhman, who directed the study using NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) telescope.

The results were published in the most recent edition of The Astrophysical Journal.

Most theories had estimated Planet X to be up to four times the size of Jupiter—the biggest planet in our solar system.

They suggested it would be found some 1,486 billion kilometers (923 billion miles) from the sun, or about 10,000 times farther than the Earth's orbit.

But the images gathered by the telescope did not detect any object larger than Jupiter.

Luhman doesn't rule out the possibility that a planet is lurking somewhere in the asteroid belt.

It would be hard to find if it were closely aligned with a bright star that blinds the telescope or were much smaller than had been theorized.

A computer generated NASA montage obtained 29 August 2002 from images collected by the Voyager 2 spacecraft shows Neptune (Lower-L) as it would appear from a spacecraft approaching Triton, Neptune's largest moon

But after this latest survey, Luhman said the odds of finding one are very unlikely: "That is like a one in a hundred chance."

History of Planet X

Scientists first imagined the existence of Planet X in 1781, when they discovered Uranus, a gas giant that astonished astronomers with its orbital variations, apparently incompatible with Newton's laws of gravity.

Observers concluded that these irregularities could be explained by the existence of another, unknown planet that was exerting its own gravitational force.

Attempts to track this mysterious Planet X led to the discovery of Neptune in 1846. But the estimated mass of Neptune couldn't explain the deviations of Uranus's orbit.

That led astronomers to continue their search for Planet X—which, in turn, led to the discovery of Pluto in 1930. But the dwarf planet was also too small to explain Uranus's irregular path around the sun.

Finally, in the 1990s, researchers determined that they had slightly overestimated the mass of Neptune, which meant the planet could in fact be the reason for Uranus's orbital behavior.

Yet Planet X believers were still not convinced.

Sister sun killed dinosaurs?

The existence of Nemesis, a sun-like star nearby, was first posited in the 1980s. The star, by occasionally coming closer to the sun, interfered with the orbit of comets and asteroids leading them to occasionally hit the Earth.

Collisions like these are blamed for the five mass extinctions over the last 540 million years—the most recent being the dinosaur extinction 65 million years ago.

"So over the years, there have been different pieces of evidence suggesting there might be something there," Luhman explained to AFP.

But the WISE telescope didn't find anything.

The hunt for Planet X and Nemesis may have turned up empty, but the study did uncover 3,525 stars and brown dwarfs—celestial objects whose mass puts them between a star and a large planet—within 500 light years of the sun.

"Neighboring star systems that have been hiding in plain sight just jump out in the WISE data," said Ned Wright, a University of California, Los Angeles astronomer who contributed to the study.

An international team of astronomers at Stellar Astrophysics Centre in Aarhus, Denmark, have discovered a new exoplanet, christened "Kepler-410A b." The planet is about the size of Neptune and orbits the brightest star in ...

(Phys.org) —Astronomers, including Carnegie's Yuri Beletsky, took precise measurements of the closest pair of failed stars to the Sun, which suggest that the system harbors a third, planetary-mass object.The research is ...

(Phys.org) —A pair of newly discovered stars is the third-closest star system to the Sun, according to a paper that will be published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. The duo is the closest star system discovered since ...

(Phys.org) —Imagine living on a planet with seasons so erratic you would hardly know whether to wear Bermuda shorts or a heavy overcoat. That is the situation on a weird, wobbly world found by NASA's planet-hunting Kepler ...

Recommended for you

(Phys.org)—A team of astronomers led by Andrés E. Piatti of the Astronomical Observatory of Córdoba in Argentina has recently observed an extra-tidal clumpy structure around the globular cluster NGC 288. The results of ...

Cristina Ramos Almeida, researcher at the IAC, and Claudio Ricci, from the Institute of Astronomy of the Universidad Católica de Chile, have published a review in Nature Astronomy on the material that obscures active galactic ...

New findings reveal deposits on Mars that could be interpreted to be ice-rich may contain little or no ice at all, based on an analysis of radar sounder data for Meridiani Planum—an area on the planet's equator being explored ...

An international team of scientists from the Monash University (Melbourne, Australia), the Towson and Pittsburgh Universities (USA) and the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, has shed new light on the origins of the famous ...

Three-dimensional (3-D) subsurface radar volumes generated from thousands of 2-D radar profiles are revealing new information about the polar regions of Mars, including more accurate mapping of CO2 and water ices, the discovery ...

A recently discovered dwarf galaxy in the constellation Lynx may serve well as a proxy for better understanding the developing chemistry of the early universe, according to a research team that includes University of Virginia ...

65 comments

The first photo legended as Uranus is, in fact, Ariel.One of the 27 moons of Uranus...Anyone knows that Uranus is a Gas planes so no surface features...This photos is of a silicate rocky celestian body!These "scientific" articles are getting worse by the day!Check here Ariel's photos:http://en.wikiped...l_(moon)

To add to the other problems, but not really a fault of the article author, Nemesis was debunked a decade ago. More data and modern statistics (autocorrelation) used on the fossil record of bivalves showed no periodicity in extinctions to high precision.

In 2010, Melott & Bambach re-examined the fossil data, including the now-improved dating, and using a second independent database in addition to that Raup & Sepkoski had used. They found evidence for a signal showing an excess extinction rate with a 27-million-year periodicity, now going back 500 million years, and at a much higher statistical significance than in the older work.

In 2010, Melott & Bambach re-examined the fossil data, including the now-improved dating, and using a second independent database in addition to that Raup & Sepkoski had used. They found evidence for a signal showing an excess extinction rate with a 27-million-year periodicity, now going back 500 million years, and at a much higher statistical significance than in the older work. Melott, A.L.; Bambach, R.K. (2010). "Nemesis Reconsidered". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical

'There is just one problem: neither "Planet X" nor "Nemesis" ever existed, researchers now say. Or probably not. "The outer solar system probably does not contain a large...'1 emphatic 'no' and 2 'probably' for the same item!? These early statements hardly give one the motivation to read on.

'The hunt for Planet X and Nemesis may have turned up empty, but the study did uncover 3,525 stars and brown dwarfs—celestial objects whose mass puts them between a star and a large planet—within 500 light years of the sun.'Oh I get it, these are cause of 'Planet X and Nemesis' theories...then again PROBABLY NOT! (just being funny here)I'm pleased the article reminds us of mass extinctions...are we due for another then? PROBABLY NOT.

Naively, I expected everybody here, and the writers, to at least know that Urauns is a gaseous planet.

Careful, possibly not entirely. From wiki (Uranus): "In contrast, the interior of Uranus is mainly composed of ices and rock." & " Uranus is similar in composition to Neptune, and both are of different chemical composition than the larger gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. For this reason, astronomers sometimes place them in a separate category called "ice giants"". Wiki (Neptune): " The interior of Neptune, like that of Uranus, is primarily composed of ices and rock.[11] It is possible that the core has a solid surface, but the temperature would be thousands of degrees and the atmospheric pressure crushing".http://en.wikiped...i/Uranushttp://en.wikiped.../NeptuneRegards, DH66

Regarding the new study by Merlott et al, "Nemesis Reconsidered", the authors state that: "In this sense we confirm the originally noted feature in the time series for extinction. However, we find that it displays extremely regular timing for about 0.5 Gy. The regularity of the timing compared with earlier calculations of orbital perturbation would seem to exclude the Nemesis hypothesis as a causal factor." and "We show here that the fossil record is inconsistent with perturbations expected in the orbit of a dark Solar companion with the requisite orbital period."

Raup, Merlott and I were addressing periodicity, of which Planet X is a hypothetical cause. I read the Merlott in preprint and am pleased that Maggnus read it at all, even only the abstract.

Yea, actually I read the whole thing. You'll note I didn't only quote from the abstract (like you did) I also quoted from the body of the paper.

Are you changing your position now Doug? Have I misunderstood you? My impression was that you were using the new Merlott paper to suggest that new techniques support the premise that a "Nemesis" type body causes periodic extinctions. Is that incorrect?

Hi there Cap'n...Oh you mean like http://xfacts.com/x5.html? All the proof you need!...that is if you don't the count the misinterpretations of what Sumerians wrote...sure zeph is in there somewhere ha!

linking to a forum chat site that is for conspiracy nuts is NOT empirical data

Valid info exists independent of its source. You might suspect zephyrs info but this does not mean that it is wrong, only that you might want to look for corroboration from a source you're more comfortable with.

Valid info exists independent of its source. You might suspect zephyrs info but this does not mean that it is wrong, only that you might want to look for corroboration from a source you're more comfortable with

@Ottoit might not mean it is "wrong" but the source is definitely not a good one, and from what I saw, neither was the infothere was also a link on his source for NASA, but it did not corroborate the claim that I saw

as for looking for a source that I am more comfy with: Zephir made the claim, therefore it is Zeph's responsibility to come up with a legitimate source that supports his claim (as it is NASA, there should be evidence- it brings to mind the claims of NASA covering up the pyramid on the moon and doctoring the moon photo's, etc)

I dont know anything about "David icke"... I will check it out, as well as his sources and support

so how does this support your claims of censorship? why not link NASA? show PROOF!

This is just the reason, I linked the discussion there. The pictures with erased data are linked there (1, 2) BTW If you're beliving, that the astronomical data of NASA aren't censored, then you're simply very naive. Before some time ALL studies of NASA were pulled down from the web with respect to their analysis regarding the national security. I could ask instead, why some apparent supporter of mainstream science like you should represent an ubiased source regarding the controversial topics, which are censored with mainstream science.

BTW If you belive, the astronomical data of NASA aren't censored, then you're simply very naive.

@zephok... you CLAIM it is censored with pice from a fruit-cake convention in a conspiracy forumand you say that I am naïve?Did you ever contact NASA and request information about the blacked out boxes? Did you try to find out what the reason might actually be? Maybe the pixel was bad, or pixellation occurred distorting the image... there are a myriad of reasons that a pic like this could have small black boxes.

Given your propensity to support ANY conspiracy to come down the pike, I suspect this is just another cold-fusion-aether-daw-unsupported-biased-pseudoscience claim made as there is NO supporting evidence that you provided thus far that can be taken as legitimate

I could ask instead, why some apparent supporter of mainstream science like you should represent an ubiased source regarding the controversial topics, which are censored with mainstream science

@zephok, WTF does this even mean?What unbiased source am I representing? Especially regarding the "controversial topics" which are "censored" with mainstream science?

Do you mean that YOU don't like legitimate science sites because they wont let garbage science be represented, like your CLAIMS about cold-fusion etc?

If you have a beef with them (universities, etc), take it up with themif you have a problem with me using empirical data, then you are stupidif you cannot provide empirical data to support your CLAIMS, then you have the issue, not I

we've been down this rabbit hole before. provide empirical dataI do it to support my arguments, you should as well

Maybe the pixel was bad, or pixellation occurred distorting the image... there are a myriad of reasons

Censoring is just censoring, no matter which reason it is. For example, I don't analyze the reasons, for which my accounts are deleted from here. These things just happens.

YOU don't like legitimate science sites because they wont let garbage science be represented

I just don't like the censorship in any form. The "garbage science" labelling is just the same evasion made with trolls, like the Putin's "protection" of "native Russians" at Crimea. The reasons and evasions aren't important, the result is.

@TheGhostofOtto1923...you mean those reptilians are real? Or do they come from Planet X?

No, I mean that David icke is real and that he employs very good researchers who have done some very good work. I think icke is smarter than he looks - he uses that outrageous cover story because he knows that that's the only way to sell.

I didn't say it was easy to sort his facts from his fiction, only that it's possible.

As this is against posting rules... that would explain it, dont you think?

I just don't like the censorship in any form. The "garbage science" labelling is just the same evasion made with trolls

1- as you are on a SCIENCE site, and you are posting KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE, then that makes YOU the troll, not those who censor you for breaking the rules2- I dont like censorship either, BUT there are RULES and you dont follow them

make your own forum and do what you like, but as THIS is a SCIENCE sitethere are other places for the other stuff

I'm not posting any pseudoscience, you hysterical troll... :-) I just linked two pictures with erased pixels from on-line WISE database. Try to live with it: it's me who proves my stance here - not you. I'm just following the rules of this forum - not you.

I just linked two pictures with erased pixels from on-line WISE database

@zachia/zephactually, your link is copied herehttp://chani.invi...4997.pnglets see... first it starts with chani.invisionzone.com... and that is what you are assuming is the WISE database?Um... NOTyour first link was the "forums" on the chani site (STILL not WISE database)all links you've made here as Zachia are to chani... NOT the WISE databaseso THAT means that this claim

it's me who proves my stance here - not you. I'm just following the rules of this forum - not you

is intentionally false, and is just a temper tantrumguess what... thats right!It means that you are WRONG YET AGAIN

nice try, skippy. Care for another round?This time lets see if you can ACTUALLY link WISE database hereP.S. just because it LOOKS like a screenshot, doesn't mean it IS onePROVE IT

Pippero

The reason, why I'm instinctively downvoted without any arguments, when I'm talking about nonexistence of WIMPs, gravitational waves or big bang cosmology is, these theories became a religious thing for proponents of mainstream physics

Back to this GARBAGE again Zephyr? I have asked you several times now with no response, but let try once more.

Can you show anything, anything AT ALL that supports your contention that dark matter or neutrinos can initiate fusion in anything at any time? Anything? One single thing, anywhere?

You have no support at all for any of the gobblegook you spout on this site. Why bother?

@Captain Stumpy, hi there, sorry I'm a bit late with this one '..ok, WTF does this even mean?..' I know this one because I am a member, World TaeKwonDo Federation. And you will find listed everywhere as WTF (along with ITF etc.) but what does that have to do with Planet X?Oh yes, of course, silly me, the Korean founders must have come from Planet X Ha!Do you think zeph is a member too? Maybe he will tell you whereas he wont bother with me.

I'm just saying, that NASA had enough of time for manipulation of WISE data

@Zachia/Pippero/Zephirand I am saying that your insistence of conspiracy is not proof of conspiracyclaims require proof otherwise you might as well just say "fairy tears makes squid urine salty" as it holds every bit the same validity of unsubstantiated conjecture

In my theory the global warming could be caused with dark matter cloud pervading the solar system

unsubstantiated conjecture: see last comment

This cloud could be dragged with Planet X, but it could have many other origins (Great Rift gravitational shadow, dark matter at galactic plane, etc)

and Bigfoot could be related to Danny DeVito, too

So far we have only indirect evidence, so I don't take the Planet X hypothesis very seriously. But I know about many indicia of it already

Planet X and Nemesis have many corollaries to dark matter. We use an unknown/undetected amount of matter explain something that our theory doesn't...dark martter? Perhaps one day dark matter will be 'debunked' when we achieve a deeper understanding of Einstein's equations as was the case with Newton's equations?

For those of you who don't believe that NASA data is censored, well, I can tell you that it most certainly is. Check out the following location in Google Earth. Select View->Explore->Sky and input the following co-ords: -5.982030° -91.571036°

Of course there is a Planet X, it is Nibiru, and the reason that you can be sure that it exists is that they published an article debunking it. Nobody asked for the article.

Incidentally, according to all the evidence garnered from my readings (a LOT!) Nibiru should make its next close approach between 2076 and 2078. I don't know what they plan to do this time. They once sucked up all the water and atmosphere from Mars during a close approach to that planet. They are a devious lot, these Nibiruans.

Yes, antialias_physorg, I do know what corollary means. In case you need reminding it is.... "a proposition that follows from one already proved"and I already imagine you need reminding what proposition means, which is.... "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion"

antialias_physorg, I don't think you need to be focusing on semantics. To make it clearer for you....propose a undetected planet/brown dwarf to explain weird orbits {explain what equations don't} --> propose dark matter causes things to orbit faster than they should {explain what equations don't} --> it follows that Nemesis/Planet X and dark matter are correlated)?

..and you were using it to link Nibiru with dark matter. Two things not yet proven. See the problem?I was just pointing out that you were trying to make an argument based on a non-arguemnt...which is sort of nonsensical.

propose dark matter causes things to orbit faster than they should {explain what equations don't} --> it follows that Nemesis/Planet X and dark matter are correlated)?

Propose that the sky is blue. Propose that there exists a lipstick that is blue. Correlated?

Planet X and Nemesis have many corollaries to dark matter. We use an unknown/undetected amount of matter explain something that our theory doesn't...dark martter? Perhaps one day dark matter will be 'debunked' when we achieve a deeper understanding of Einstein's equations as was the case with Newton's equations?

bwmassen So just was is it you are proposing here? Are you suggesting an analogy only? If that is what you intended then you should have posted just that. Your post does seem a bit ambiguous.

I am proposing (i.e. asking why not).....the ambiguity is meant to allow people to interpret as they chose and collaborate from.

bwmassen, I assure you I am not a troll. I am a layman in physics and related science subjects. I come here to learn about what researchers are doing. However, your post in reply to mine shows that the ambiguity is indeed intended therefore you admit to being ambiguous...or are you being ambiguous about being ambiguous???

Planet X and Nemesis have many corollaries to dark matter. We use an unknown/undetected amount of matter explain something that our theory doesn't...dark martter? Perhaps one day dark matter will be 'debunked' when we achieve a deeper understanding of Einstein's equations as was the case with Newton's equations?

bwmassen the above was your first post which says what? 'Perhaps one day dark matter will be 'debunked''. Well that goes just about everything doesn't it? I mean, even today people have written books on how they think 'Einstein was wrong' so isn't it a possibility that SR,GR, QM etc etc will be debunked too (these are just examples and do not reflect opinion I might have). Alien UFO's are continually debunked yet...So just tell me what your point is and I will gladly discuss it with you!

I was proposing something that is related to the article, and asking for related feedback.

Look, it's very simple information theory: You can only draw conclusions or inferences (or make any statistical correlation measurements) if on of the things you are positing is established. You're trying to connect two unestablished things here by means of a "doctrine of signatures". That isn't how science works. http://en.wikiped...gnatures

Also I don't think you're using the words correlation and corrolary correcly. You're confusing them with causation and 'look like' respectively.

.the ambiguity is meant to allow people to interpret as they chose and collaborate from.

Using ambiguity is not a good way to communicate what you want to say. Use the correct words and people will answer your questions. (or more likely: Use the correct words and you will notice yourself where the error is. It will eliminate the tech-babble obfuscation layer)